The petitioner joined the Electricity Board as Electrical Worker on 12.06.1997. He was thereafter promoted as Lineman in the year 2003, as Meter Reader in the year 2005 and as Sub Engineer in the year 2009.
2. It would appear that, prior to his regular appointment as Electrical Worker with effect from 12.06.1997, he was engaged on contract basis under the Board for the period from October, 1993 to August, 1994. Pursuant to the long term settlement that was entered into between the Kerala State Electricity Board and the trade unions representing the workmen, the petitioner became entitled to count the period of contract service on consolidated pay for the purposes of the weightage, that was contemplated under the settlement, for past service in the Board. The said weightage was contemplated at the rate of 1% of the basic pay in the pre-revised scale of the employee for each completed year of service under the Board as on 31.07.2003, subject to a minimum of Rs.80/- and maximum of 20%. It was also made clear that for the purposes of calculating weightage the fraction of a year, if any, consisting of six months or more will be rounded to the next higher year and the fraction of a year less than six months would be ignored.
3. In accordance with the terms of the settlement, the petitioner was given weightage of 7% considering his tenure of regular service between 12.06.1997 and 31.07.2003, and one year of contract service between October, 1993 and August, 1994. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 audit objection, the petitioner was informed that insofar as there was a break of service from August, 1994 to 12.06.1997, the period of contract service rendered by the petitioner would not be reckoned for the grant of weightage as per the long term settlement. Ext.P6 is the order of the respondent Board pursuant to the audit objection noticed against the petitioner, and in response to the representation preferred by the petitioner against the proposal to effect recoveries from him. In Ext.P6 order, the respondent Board clearly finds that insofar as there was a break in service from August, 1994 to 12.06.1997, between the contract service and the Board service of the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled for the grant of weightage in terms of long term settlement. Exts. P4 and P6 are impugned in the Writ Petition.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board wherein it is stated that as per the long term settlement, it is only such contract service, as was immediately followed by regular services, that would qualify for the grant of weightage in terms of the long term settlement. The contention of the Board, in other words, is that insofar as there is a break of almost three years between the contract service rendered by the petitioner and the commencement of regular services under the Board, the petitioner could not avail the benefit of weightage as contemplated in the long term settlement for contract services.
5. I have heard Sr.P.Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Anil, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board.
6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that as per the provisions of the long term settlement, apart from the regular weightage that is contemplated for the past service in the Board, exceptions have been carved out in cases where services have been rendered by employees in other establishments under the Government and in cases where employees had rendered contract service for the Board. In clause B(I)5 of Article IV of Ext.P1 settlement, it is indicated that “former government service followed by Board service without break will be counted for the purpose of computing qualifying service for weightage”. Similarly, in sub-clause 7 it is stated that “the period of contract service/service on consolidated pay in the Board followed by regular appointment in the Board will be counted for weightage”. It is seen from a reading of the aforesaid two clauses that while, in the case of former government services followed by Board services, there is a clear stipulation that only such government service as is followed by a Board service without break, will count for the purposes of computing qualifying services for weightage, when it comes to the contract service that is to qualify for the purposes of weightage, there is no stipulation that there cannot be a break between the period of contract service and the regular appointment under the Board.
7. In my view this appears to be a deliberate exclusion of the condition regarding break in service when it comes to the treatment of the period of contract service rendered by an employee under the Board. When it comes to the reckoning of period of contract service, for the purposes of weightage, the emphasis appears to be on the actual years of service rendered to the Board by the employee in question. When viewed in that context, it is the actual number of years that is important for determining the entitlement of the employee for the benefit of weightage and not the requirement of a continuous service, without break, between the two spells of service. Accordingly, I am of the view that Ext.P4 audit objection and Ext.P6 order of the respondent Board, that was passed pursuant thereto, cannot be legally sustained.
8. Resultantly, I quash Exts. P4 and P6 and allow the Writ Petition by declaring that the petitioner will be entitled to the weightage contemplated in Ext.P1 settlement in respect of the period of contract service rendered by him between October, 1993 and August, 1994.
The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE jjj